French, British and American military forces attack Libya

Because it has happened before.

No clue my friend, no clue.

OT: Neko-chan Allow me to rephrase my earlier statement to clarify.


To put my philosophy in simple terms, The United State would withdrawal from any mutual protection packs, N.A.T.O and the United Nations. The United States would withdraw it's navy from patrols near Japan (while allowing Japan to rebuild and maintain a standing military officially) and the Middle East while recalling all troops and material stationed abroad in Japan, Guam, Germany, and other countries then selling the bases to the nation they reside in.

We as the United States would begin a program to train every citizen in the operation and maintenance of the m4 carbine. Every citizen will be required to serve two years on active duty and upon completion of their "active duty" they would then be required to act as a reservist with the same training schedule. The system will draw heavily off the Swiss Militia system.

Economically, we would continue free trade with "economic punishments" towards countries that are unfair in their dealings (such as china manipulation of it's currency). For China I would add a 10% tax for all goods coming from China and add an additional 10% every year until China honestly evaluates it's currency. Other than that, we would not take military or economic actions against any country unless they are a direct and immediate threat to the United States.


I admit that "isolationism" was probably the wrong term to use but, a better term eluded me.

As for "We've been isolationist" before argument, Neko-chan you forget your history lessons. The myriad of Alliances and mutual protection pacts were the reason for America's (and Germany's) involvement in WW1. The results of Central Powers defeat lead to the economic conditions for Facism to rise in Western Europe. Lenin/Stalin rose to power after the Russian Revolution in 1917 which you can research on your own.

So while our Isolationism had lead to the near defeat of the "Allies" it was because of our inability to follow a non-isolationist policy that lead to our involvement in WW1 and the outbreak of WW2.

That isn't fair - I would not agree at all to serve in the military and give two years of my life. Only those willing to serve should serve. Israel has a similar approach with a mandatory two years and there are many who refuse to serve. They are thrown in jail. Will you throw in jail the thousands that refuse to serve strictly on the ground they think it infringes on their basic human rights and especially their America rights? Not to mention that such a policy would be extremely difficult due to the differences in cultures and languages here. How would Spanish speaking citizens serve? would you segregate them into Spanish only units?

And such a force would wait until their homes were attacked before being able to defend themselves. I think the idea of a voluntary force acting in conjunction with our overseas allies is a much better alternative. We haven't always done that, but if we would stick to help defending our allies, we create a buffer zone. That may sound exploitative, but it also increases the security of those other Nations. Everyone wins.

Also, do not think the Chinese would not counter your attempts to tariff their goods. And who do you think would even actually pay for that 10% tax? It would just show up on the sticker price at Walmart. Your tax would just fall onto the backs of the consumer.

But before I get on to much of a tangent I will again point out where I disagree with you (and how this all relates to Libya :P)

You basically seem to think that the US or any country I guess, should not act until something is a direct and immediate threat, whether economically or militarily. That does not work, and really I can't sum it up any better than saying it is common knowledge that you have to snip the buds before they grow into something larger. Military, politics, economics are all fluid and fast paced. You have to be mobile and have the capability to deal with these problems. Alliances and treaties (including those that allow us to set up infrastructure in allied nations) are part of what gives us that mobility.

The 'conscription' would be a betrayal of the rights principles upon which your country was founded, and China would inevitably retaliate (reminds me of good old 'cotton democracy') to any such tax - considering the problems with their massive growth and growing 3rd world markets, they could probably 'tank the damage' - in which instance you would have minimal capacity to make up for any shortfall. Otherwise, I've said my bit on the UN's role as a platform for diplomatic relations and trade, and the implied merits of root action are obvious. That's not to say that it is necessarily the right approach, but it is certainly not one from which you could retreat so easily. It would require an incomprehensible shift in policy and public opinion, the likes of which only dictators have ever inspired (handily well prevented by the US system).

Drawing on that, American interventionism is sort of bound to continue as long as military spending continues at the current rate, and military spending is essentially dictated by military contractors. They sell contracts, contracts make jobs, everybody is happy. Prevention and direct defence are two speculative ideas just like the cutting/spending approaches to deficit reduction; no-one can say for sure how they will pan out. But at the moment, your hands are tied.

Uh, what? Conscription is a perfectly viable enrollment method in the United States and has been done on several occasions before. How can it "betray our rights" when there is no right that says American citizens can't be drafted?

It is not a formal right, but ideologically speaking, that is not something you could get away with any more. I guess I was talking more in terms of the perception of a free country and what that entails than anything grounded; interpretations change, after all. But it is still very much subsidiary to the other problems.

There is a significant element of personal belief and political theory tied up in all of this which we aren't going to surpass. The only tangible evidence we have is of heavy interventionism because that's what's been practised through the modern era.

edit: I think principles was more the word I was looking for. :p Long day.

Maybe, but it is still plausible. Yeah, there would be a lot of people who wouldn't appreciate it. Take the conscription during the Vietnam War, for example. I'm just staying it can't betray a right, if there is no such right to begin with.

I'm not terribly thrilled with FPOD's suggestion either, but I certainly feel more comfortable with that than the current trend the U.S. military is on. There are just so many armed conflicts to which we have no business participating. Oh well, it is just an idea to be thrown around regardless. No point in getting overly heated up about it when this just a bunch of average citizens throwing around ideas rather than what is necessarily going through the minds of U.S. government officials.

Are you crazy? Serving in the military is the best thing you can legitimately put on any application. You have access to so much training in the U.S military outside of combat training. My friend went through and got trained as an engineer. Also, that's un-American.



Agreed but jail time sounds better than firing squad, no?



What? Are you aware that people who gain legitimate citizenship in America are kind of required to learn it? Unless of course you count our illegal immigrants as U.S citizens.



Uh, why would they let their home country be attacked? And why should we fight other countries battles?




"Traders seeking to evade tariffs are known as smugglers." So screw you China, start making good on Tariffs like everyone else should be doing.



So, you want America to "forcibly police the freeworld"?

@Dos: The United States supreme court has rules that it is constitutional for the U.S. Government to draft it's citizens.

Link

Remember the last time there was a draft in the Vietnam War? Yeah, that shit didn't go over so well. "By mom! I'm off to start my career in life!" "No you aren't son! You are getting drafted!"

I do agree with Tsurayu about there being too many conflicts and too many the US is involved in - but if you have the means to help someone and yet you sit and watch on the sidelines and do nothing, that a bit inhumane. Chances are it will come around to bite you.



How is that un-American? to NOT serve in the Military when there is no draft? That is not un-American at all. And why should I serve just cause it is something good to put on an application? Are you kidding? I'm going to serve in the military for a job reference? Also, it wouldn't look good on an application WHEN EVERYONE ELSE HAS ALSO DONE IT.



You know what sounds even better? Giving people the freedom to choose whether or not they want to be in the military.



No they are not. That is just flat out wrong. My grandmother is an American citizen and she knows like two words in English. Also, that is illegal to even do so as the United States has NO official language. States may try to force people to learn English, but it is still illegal. Heck, only a few years ago a hotdog stand guy in Philadelphia was forced to remove a sign from his stand that said, "English only" since it was discrimination.



Oh were you planning on attacking BEFORE someone else attacks you? Like pre-emptively? Or did you think that another country was going to send you a letter specifying the time and date of the War, and let you prepare a battlefield?




You don't have to evade tariffs to avoid taking a hit from them. Put a tariff on a countries goods, they'll raise the price. Stores raise their prices in turn, then consumers pay more. You are taxing your own people.

Theoretically, you'd say, "Well, with higher foreign prices, people will buy domestic!" but the problem there is that you can't pay people enough in America to make shirts and plastic toys. The wages wouldn't be high enough, there isn't enough profit, and that is why we don't make them anymore.



It isn't policing - we don't attack people for little infractions or force them to follow some law - and America isn't securing peace on its own. It is doing it in conjunction with it's allies. Together, we "police" or secure OUR world.

Inhumane? There is nothing inhumane about securing your own interests and refusing to participate in armed conflict that doesn't involve you. Stop trying to mix moral ideology with political ideology. It doesn't work, trust me.

"When everyone else has done it?" Um... so? There are millions of people who put that they are fluent in another language, but people still love bilingual employees. This isn't exactly a cut and dry supply and demand model we're talking about here.

Yes, you do have to know English because unless you are elderly or disabled or coming in through the "Grandparent Rule", amnesty, or similar, then you have to know English and pass the citizenship test to be a legal United States citizen.

I don't even know how to respond to the next point. It just makes no sense.

No, not necessarily. The citizens of the country imposing the tariffs do not have to make up the difference. Besides, like FPOD mentioned, the Chinese would know well enough to agree to those kind of stipulations. The Chinese economy depends just as much on the veil of respect between the United States as the United States depends on China. China couldn't just go "Oh, we aren't paying that" and be done with it. Or they would go belly-up real quick.

Why do any of us need to "police" the world?

Okay, time to stop quoting all your worthless points.

First, you seem to not want government around. Or it would seem from your posts. You aren't willing to give 2 years of your life for the country you live in? That's being unpatriotic. There are costs to living in organized society and sometimes doing something you don't want to do happens. Irregardless.

(Skipping the English bit because I know others will say it... More politely)

Honestly, the only reason someone else would attack us first is because of our current way of handling Foreign Policy. Going around the backs of alleys? Oh, and policing together? I assume you mean the UN? Can you honestly recall a time, in recent history, that the UN has backed us? Because the didn't after 9/11 and they still don't. So who is helping us bully whatever other country we feel like it when we feel like it? It's not our place to.

@ZKnoves - 1) It is my right as an American to be unpatriotic. I believe most of the founding fathers were very unpatriotic to their nation yes? 2) No I wasn't talking about the UN, don't try to set up your arguments buy putting words in my mouth. 3) You only have to be able to understand and write simple phrases in English (Where are you from? What is your name? What is your Address? The numbers 1-25) You do not need to know how to communicate where an enemy is over a radio to call in an air strike.



It is due to Switzerland never even fighting (they hold the banks hostage) and the fact they are a homogeneous nation. And yes, people do complain about it and go to jail, and many get exempt for dubious reasons or because they have connections. You are right though, we have a different mentality. But then what you are saying is you want to change American mentality, because right now the American people WILL take up arms if you passed your policy - to revolt and put your head on a stick. Being American means above all else that YOU are incharge of the government and tell IT what to do - not the other way around.

BTW, you didn't explain how you'd overcome the culture and language barriers.



So you'll send out your Navy and Airforce knowing they'll get killed? Instead of having a standing military ready to defeat the enemy, you'll sacrifice a token force to buy time? As a military wife, I find that sick. Your military sound woefully unprepared for battle. And how are you going to pay for these millions of soldiers? You have way too many by forcing EVERYONE too serve. You have a lot of poorly trained soldiers - many of who don't want to be there - instead of a smaller more concentrated force of elite warriors who signed up to fight.

Please don't tell me that no one gets paid.



No, you are right to think they are a threat for manipulating currancy, but there are far more effective ways to combat that besides tariffs. Tariffs are like a sledge hammer to a problem that needs a scalpel. You can claim the Chinese (or Russians) wont do anything, but they aren't going to be afraid of you. Put their backs against the wall and they'll fight you economically until they are satisfied.



Frankly, I'm insulted that you would speculate I would say such things. First, I don't see any evidence that non-intervention works either. I do see instances where isolated countries prospered after stopping such policies - Japan during Tokogawa, and the US after WWII. And as I already pointed out, even if you AREN'T claiming isolationism but just a policy of non-intervention, again you do yourself no favors by standing by and not helping out the countries you want to deal with.

We don't gain anything from stopping Gadhfi forces from attacking civilians. Do we need to? Should we be nationalist who care only for the symbol and pride of our own country and stand by as we see innocents get attacked? Right now, if you want to say we are "gaining" something, it is us backing up the allies that have helped us in the past. But it does not really matter. Who are you first though FPoD? An American or a Human? Because fine - as an American you have nothing to gain and shouldn't be concerned. But as a Human you are a monster if you don't stop the killing of innocents, mothers, sons, daughters, the elderly and the crippled.

Your sympathy does nothing, but your nation has the power to help and stop one selfish man who refuses to listen to his people.

I find it terribly funny that you seem to be very pleased with current U.S. military strategies and economic policies; enough to defend the current policies this long, in this thread, and then claim to be unpatriotic just because you would choose to refuse a civic duty. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Funny thing about being american...

But no I'm not pleased with current U.S. policy. I just think your guys' idea is worst. I think it ignores the many of the complexities of governing people. However, just because I'm for intervening in certain instances, I'm not for doing it in every situation or even most situations.

Also, LOL @ Libyan gold. It sounds like the new Nazi gold.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/22/exp.tsr.gadhafi.gold.reserves.cnn?hpt=C2

I honestly don't feel like quoting each individual piece.

Switzerland's mentality is due to the geographical locations isolating them for many years and have to deal with repeated invasions from foreign powers that has lead to their unity and mentality of national defense.

The United States citizen hasn't controlled the government since the 1800's when corporations were formed. Money bought politicians back then as it does now. Unplug from the matrix Trinity.

Federal law mandates that legal immigrants must learn English in order to obtain a green card. If they can not speak English, they will be taught. Anyways, this was a concept I came up with in ten minutes. If you wish to continue discussing this, make a thread as it's derailing this one.


It was a concept I came up with in 10 minutes. Forgive me, if a rough draft has a few flaws. Mandatory or volunteer forces, the point remains the same. U.S. citizens should be armed and trained for the defense of the nation and ONLY the defense of the nation from a direct and immediate threat to the United States. We should not engage in "proactive" strikes against a nation without a declaration of War.

Military Reservists make about $250 a month for two Saturdays worth of training. Every militia member would be paid roughly this amount. The money to equip and train the new recruits would come from the money saved from closing the bases abroad which was totaled at 48.8 billion dollars annually by Donald Rumsfeld in 2005.

Regardless of who goes in first whether it is the Navy and Air Force or the Army/Marine Grunts there will be casualties. Don't get all emotional over casualties considering your position has been for the advocacy of military action in another sovereign nation. As for the "token force" It's not merely a "token force" it's half of the U.S. Navy (considering half would be in the Atlantic while the other half is in the Pacific). Regardless, we spend far too much money trying to police the world and we're earning a bad reputation with it which is straining our international ties. It's time to pull back and mind our own business. Pay down our debt, get back on the path of an economic recovery. Not investing soldiers abroad and getting paid in body bags.

This is beside the original topic. If you wish to discuss this, make another thread.

Doesn't matter if China wants to fight with us. Again, this is besides the original topic. Create one if you wish to discuss it.

You are free to feel insulted but, I don't really care about your emotional state to begin with. Non-intervention is not the same as Isolationism. Tokugawa Japan was Isolationist. I am merely advocating for the abstaining of military force in a nation that is not a direct and immediate threat to the United States. You're failure to understand this concept is becoming tiresome. Either learn the difference or stop wasting my time.

Switzerland, New Zealand and Sweden are neutral/non-interventionist states. It's working for them. I'm suggesting we emulate them in foreign policy. Rather than investing our bodies and getting body bags in return. You criticize me for being inhuman for not sending more people to die. I criticize you for wanting to send more people to die.



You lost all credibility right here. Dragging an emotional argument into this rather than arguing facts. Cease or leave.


Ma'am, "Armchair theory". is an unofficial term for the approach which economists are perceived to mostly use for coming up with a new economic theory. If you are going to use a term, use it properly. Also the Alliances BEFORE the war drug a minor conflict into a major conflict. The resulting treaties occurred due to the Alliances that existed before the war. Seriously, the concept is not difficult to grasp. A lead to B which lead to C and D.

I feel like I should apologize because I'm finding it terribly difficult to keep civil and not just get emotionally involved. I find it just as irksome that some people seem to be content, or even think we should increase, United States presence in these armed conflict as those people who find my attitude irksome.

At least understand why some of us prefer a more isolationist stance. Understand why it is that so many countries downright hate the United States. We've gone from wanting to protect our own interests overseas, to interfering in the day-to-day activities of a lot of nations while trying to spread our "pro democracy" ways to a lot of countries who quite frankly don't want to hear it.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the United States government to step back and let "nature take its course." We don't need to be held responsible to police the rest of the world. The world will operate just fine without Big Brother hovering over the globe. We can still share our ideas, culture, economy with other countries without having to be involved in the affairs of other countries.

That's what this thing with Libya boils down to. The United States has little-to-no invested interests in Libya. Why should the United States have to interfere when our oil does not come from Libya? Is it not a little presumptuous to think that the European Union needs the United States in order to preserve their interests in the fate of the Libyan government? We are running the risk of armed conflict where we are wasting money, and possibly sending men to their death, which you claim to hate so much neko-chan, all for something that isn't in the best interest of our country. How is that any better than the situation that FPOD mentioned that irked you so much? At least in FPOD's scenario men are dying for the defense of their country, what would the men in Libya be dying for?

@Tsuyaru - I'll have to try even harder next time, but I tried to make every effort to point out that while I disagree with your opinions, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I never once belittled what you guys had to say and I respect your philosophies.

I always considered it healthy to have people disagree with you. Anyone who wants or expects everyone to agree with them is asking for entropy. The odds of anyone being right or infinitesimal, and likely the best course of action is some combination of our combined thinking.

Sorry if I offended you or if you thought I was not giving what you said fair consideration.



That is your opinion and I'll just straight up disagree with you there.

As for the rest of what you said, I'll just say that I understand where you are coming from, but there is no need to flop from one extreme to the other. I won't argue with your ideas of what you would do were you in a position to implement your ideas of national/international security, but I only first argued them because you said them so matter-of-factly. I won't bother with it anymore since seriously, I'm sure you don't have a well laid out plan for national defense. Not that your aren't capable of coming up with one, but unless you've been putting a lot of time into this then it wouldn't be fair. (BTW, just take a second to do so and you will see that you don't have to know that much English, I promise you guys. This is only naturalized citizen we are talking about too, there are many who are born here and still do not learn.)

I do understand the difference of Isolationism and non-intervention, stop insulting my intelligence. I still stand by my point though. The only difference in consequences between the two is that non-intervention would have less severe ramifications that straight out isolation. But, yes they are different policies, okay? I acknowledge that and I understand that now and in the past and in the foreseeable future.

Note: Sending in military does not mean you are going to have casualties. The US went into Bosnia to stem the tide of genocide and did not lose a single American life due to enemy combat.

Cease or leave my own topic? No thanks. It is your own problem if you cannot deal with the human factor entering into a debate - there is more than just data and statistics to quote when you have a discussion with another person. Even then, what I said is still true, there are all of the above types of people being caught in the violence. But to ignore people, their behavior, and even emotion is to ignore a large part of what makes the world go round.

And no sir, armchair theory is when you sit around and see a link between facts A B and C make assumptions that seem valid but cannot be proven yet accept it as fact anyways. Wikipedia is not your best source, as I noticed you quoted almost exactly what it defines Armchair theory as. It is an actual term I assure you, and it is used in human studies (sociology, psychology, history) frequently not to mention you can find the term used even outside those subjects. You learn the term quite early on in Sociology and are warned against it.

Also, you sound frustrated and mad. Please do not get upset because I disagree with you, I have respected your opinion so far and I would like you to do the same courtesy for me.

That's adorable that you still cling to the idea that Americans have controlled the Government in any conceivable fashion since the 1800's. Enjoy your bread and circuses then.



You're knee jerk reaction earlier implied I would send the Navy out in row boats armed with harshly worded letters and rubber ducks.



No, cease or leave Serious Discussion as a whole. I don't tolerate emotions clouding the argument. So what if some citizens under a dictatorship are dying? Some people want Qaddafi to stay in power (mainly those in Tripoli and the western half of Lybia). So are we going to trample what they want because others want a different system? What makes America so special as to use military force on other sovereign nations yet, if N. Korea invaded S. Korea we'd be tripping over ourselves to stop them. It's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

Are we the only nation in the world who can invade a country? You tried justifying military action because people were being killed in Lybia. Would you also try to justify military action in Darfur during that conflict? What about the conflict in south Ossetia/Georgia?



I'm not sitting and theorizing this with my thumb up my ass. These are actual connections that experts have found after studying the events. These people have spent careers analyzing the events that occurred prior, during and after WW1 and how they lead to the events of WW2 then how events that occurred during WW2 caused events that happened after wards. History is pretty black and white about this kind of stuff.

For example, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria sparked a chain of events that triggered WW1. That is solid fact, A lead to B which lead to C. calling this "armchair theory" is a simple cop out.

- The government is made up by the people. Or our you going to say that the only people elected are those back by powerful figures and who get money from corporations? Not people like Obama who raise hundreds of millions from small donations via Facebook? Or do you not have the ability of going out and telling people to vote for you or a candidate you endorse? If there is a part of the US that the people do not control their own government, it is because of their own fault for not being involved, not electing the right people, or not stepping up to the plate themselves.

- Knee jerk reaction? I do not have knee jerk reactions. I would comment more, but I said I wouldn't discuss your military strategy if you didn't.

- If it isn't unbridled raw emotion, then it should be included in a conversation. We aren't robots, we do things sometimes because we feel like it, and if YOU can't tolerate emotion then you can leave.

- Yes I would justify a peace keeping force in Darfur. Just like I endorse a no fly zone. You assume I am for removing Gahdafi from power and the US overthrowing governments. I am not. I just approve of us knocking out their planes that are bombing civilians.

- History is not black and white, not unless you are talking about legal documents and dates. History depends on your perspective and on conjecture of what men's true goals and ideas were. Ideally, yeah it would be black and white, but it is not so in reality.

- Franz Ferdinand did spark a chain of event that triggered WWI, yes. That wasn't what you were going on about.

-Again, please see the beginning of my last post directed at Tsuyaru - it is directed at you too - and the ending of the post. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but at least respect that I can have one and not be an idiot.